| Poll |
| Is the foul in this situation a good play |
| Yes, nothing wrong with a foul. I would foul too |
|
63% |
[ 162 ] |
| No, a foul here is overkill. You will surely score the run and win. No sense in hurting the team further. |
|
15% |
[ 39 ] |
| Foul away, but be ready for your opp to be mad at you. |
|
21% |
[ 55 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 256 |
|
Longshanks
Joined: Feb 02, 2005
|
 Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 00:19 |
 
|
I'm with a couple of other posters, in the situation you describe, I would not have fouled. I don't foul (unless I'm fouled first in which case I might Turn8/16 foul to 'get even') so I wouldn't have done it 'on principle' regardless of the score/positon on the field.
I'm not fond of being fouled myself but as your opponent I would have understood/accepted a tactical foul might be 'justified' in that situation and not moaned about it.
It probably depends on how much you value winning I suppose. The chances of him successfully retrieving the ball are small and wouldn't in my opinion warrant the chance of hurting his team further by fouling. If he had managed it, he's obvioulsy a lucky bastard and deserves to get a draw. 
Remember also that even had he suceeded, at worst assuming you fail the pickups, you have a draw. So you 'need' a foul to win but could win anyway and you would certainly not lose. If you're a win-at-all costs player then you foul. I'm not a win-at-all-costs coach, so I don't. |
|
|
Voorn
Joined: Nov 23, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 04:12 |
|
Longshanks, I am of a similer mind to you. I would rather give the opponant a long shot chance of making a tie and left the game on good terms then knowingly make someone mad and never be able to play that coach again.
Look at it this way, After causing that many casulties and not losing, you had a lot higher chance of gaining ff then losing it and you have an opponant who will jump at the chance to play you again. To me it is all about the fun and getting along and comradship. Winning and losing is secondary. Like I said earlier, I can see the reasoning for the foul and would have accepted it with no qualms were it done to me. |
_________________
Holder of the official Fumbbl titles of
1. EVIL INC 2. Evil Personified 3. Worst Coach
Gaming account self closed due to attempts to hack it and a lack of interest to play.
Immitated in chat by another member "S**n" |
|
Shinan
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 05:17 |
|
I completely agree with Mnemon on this one and that's probably what I'd have done. However fouling in a situation like this is really what fouling is for. Otherwise you'd have prone players in blitzing positions all over that couldn't be hurt. |
_________________
"Älä löi, en ole hurrit." |
|
Wildstorm
Joined: Jun 12, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 05:50 |
|
For me it would all come down to him being a jerk or not. Tactical fouls are ok to me, but I've been the victim of too many senseless fouls that killed teams. Fouling is part of the game and up to you, but I wish it wasn't in the rulebook myself. I haven't seen the replay (not working for me for some reason) but would ask if you could get the fouling zombie in postion to screw up his dodge or assist enough to mess him up. If not, then up to you to foul or not. Plus maybe it matters if he is still pushing after the ball up until this point... if he has been trying to stop you then foul away, he knows the chances! |
|
|
Walks_in_the_Sun
Joined: Apr 16, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 07:36 |
|
In this situation, I feel a foul is warranted, though I probably wouldn't have done it. The ones I hate are when my opponent is already winning and in no danger of losing the ball, my team is already decimated and outnumbered, and they throw a foul because my thrower or S4 lino are still alive, albeit stunned, on the field. It makes me wonder if they're trying to cripple my team. I'll extend you the right to try anything in pursuit of a W, but every so often you find someone who doesn't seem to care about winning. And as much as some people like to remind us that BB is about carnage, they also need to remember it's about putting a ball in play and *scoring.* If the cerebral or "gentleman" player among us should go play cricket or something, then the sadists should just go play an FPS or blow up army men with fireworks. If you're scared that my last 4 guys will come back 2 TDs on you in the last quarter of play to attempt an easy second TD (as opposed to stalling for 4-5 turns and blocking or fouling the few poor souls left on the pitch), I will call you a coward.
That said, it's not too big of a deal. I lose more guys to thrown rocks and failed GFIs anyway... |
|
|
Glutton
Joined: Dec 21, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 07:39 |
|
HEH, foul makes sense there to win and would have no prob with it.....but yeah gotta say I dislike fouling to destroy, though its damn funny when they just cant inflict more than 1 SI after tying about 6 fouls lol & then u KILL one of theirs (and apoth fails) on a block & 2 turns or so later KILL another player in the same spot on a block...ahhh tis to laugh & I damn near poo'd myself with laughing. |
|
|
Arcon
Joined: Mar 01, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 08:05 |
|
I voted for the foul is ok, and I didn´t read all statements here nor did I watch the replay.
But in a situation where you have a huge advantage in player numbers and player strenght I would prefer to put enough players between my ball carrier and the player that could reach him. Or cage the prone player and make almost sure he can´t be a real danger.
So, it was tactical and ok, but I think a play where you can ensure your win without a foul is the more desirable way to go.
It would have been worse if you were leading 3-1 already or if it was a foul on a player not in reach of your ball carrier. These fouls happen and these are the one that rightly make your opponent angry. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 11:05 |
|
| Voorn wrote: | | Longshanks, I am of a similer mind to you. I would rather give the opponant a long shot chance of making a tie and left the game on good terms then knowingly make someone mad and never be able to play that coach again. |
Knowingly? We're currently running at around 16% NOs.
So, chances are the coach would not get upset. I'll bet that most of those 16% would not actually have got upset themselves if they were on the wrong end of this foul.
So, are we restricting ourselves to a subsection of the rules just because a small number of people throw tantrums at certain game events? If someone cannot handle something like this why would you want to play them again?
I wouldn't consider myself a 'win at all costs' coach, I'm still not keen on 'tactical whiners'. People who whine in the hope that you may be discouraged from fouling, stalling, taking your time e.t.c. when those are valid options thus increasing their chances of winning. |
_________________
O[L]C 2016 Swiss! - April ---- All Star Bowl - Teams of Stars - 2 more teams needed |
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 11:32 |
|
I am one of the people that voted no. See my explanation above. I can understand the foul and accept it, but still see it as a bit of an overkill as the poll option formulates it (watch the replay - the player is surrounded by three players and would have to do two dodges to reach the ball carrier - first to get out from those three players then from one tacklezone into another ... and all that with ag3 and no re-roll/apoth).
-Mnemon |
|
|
Emphasy
Joined: Jun 14, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 11:54 |
|
|
Wreckage
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 12:33 |
|
| Longshanks wrote: | I'm with a couple of other posters, in the situation you describe, I would not have fouled. I don't foul (unless I'm fouled first in which case I might Turn8/16 foul to 'get even') so I wouldn't have done it 'on principle' regardless of the score/positon on the field.
|
these are people like you that make me mad.... you argue you wouldn't foul but finally you foul for no reason, you dont even get spp you use fouls that are as valid as blocking as justifications for an unnessesary brutailization of the game and bad sportsmanship in community and pretend to be a good guy at the same time....
(In case you are also against blocking i maybe misunderstood you, and just have to say sry.) |
|
|
Cris
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 12:48 |
|
I would have fouled.
I think a lot of this steams from the fact that people
play for diffrent reasons. A lot of people don't play the
game to win, but to try and skill up their players.
For me, TR100 vs TR100 game is every bit as fun as
a 300 vs 300 game. So most of the time I don't mind
losing a player or two, because I'll still have fun playing
the game. Now that is of course only my personal oppinion. |
|
|
Purplegoo
Joined: Mar 23, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 13:21 |
|
I voted yes. I haven't seen the replay, but I think I've got a good grasp of the position from the thread. As far as I'm concerned, you ask the following question;
Does a foul here increase my chance of winning this game?
As long as the answer is yes, foul. The minute the game's result is beyond question, it's bad form in my eyes. To be honest, unless I had a DP, with the situation described (6% chance of a successful blitz) I wouldn't have even thought about fouling myself, but that's just because of the style I play, it isn't a moral judgement.
I love the idea of changing the description from 'foul' to 'blocking a prone player' by the way, I think it would go someway to stopping the moral arguments about the subject. |
|
|
annachie
Joined: Jul 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 13:24 |
|
Not that it's needed, but I've got a couple of cents free
It's a fouling situation alright. Not that I would do it, and if I was on the receiving end of it I might be upset by it too, but reguardless, it was a fouling situation.
I still remember bieng fouled in a game recently, hearing a parade of boo's from he spectators, and my opponent exclaiming something like "It's tactical you idiots!" Actually it was then too.
(Of course, all the above goes out the window in certain leagues) |
|
|
SnakeSanders
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jul 10, 2006 - 13:29 |
|
| Mnemon wrote: | I am one of the people that voted no. See my explanation above. I can understand the foul and accept it, but still see it as a bit of an overkill as the poll option formulates it (watch the replay - the player is surrounded by three players and would have to do two dodges to reach the ball carrier - first to get out from those three players then from one tacklezone into another ... and all that with ag3 and no re-roll/apoth).
-Mnemon |
Ive seen stranger things happen! best to make sure if you want to guarantee being safe! 
i probably wouldnt have fouled in the instance though |
|
|
|
|
| |
SWL Season 100!
Search
